October 2nd, 2010 
Admin Question by John: Should each Presidential candidate be restricted to spending an equal amount of money on a campaign?
Some have opined that Obama won the last presidential election because he spent massive amounts of money on his campaign.
In essence he bought the election, they opine, because he had an unfair advantage. He had more money to spend on buying advertising for self promotion.
Obama had 745 million dollars to spend on his campaign, while McCain had only 84 million to spend.
What do you think?
Here is a link and and an article excerpt:
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/12/obamas_presidential_campaign_r.html
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama, who rewrote the book on presidential fundraising, amassed more than $ 745 million during his marathon campaign, more than twice the amount obtained by his rival, Republican John McCain. …
In the end, Obama still had $ 30 million left over, raising questions about what he’ll do with the excess.
Overall, Obama exceeded the combined finances of the two major parties’ nominees four years ago. George W. Bush and John Kerry pulled in a total of $ 653 million in the 2004 primary and general election campaigns, including federal public financing money.
Obama’s prowess at attracting money, one of the many characteristics that defined his campaign, could well spell the end of a 30-year experiment in public financing of presidential contests.
After initially vowing to take public funds if McCain did, Obama became the first presidential candidate since the campaign finance reforms of the 1970s to raise private donations during the general election. …
But Obama could contribute to members of Congress, whom he will need on his side to support his agenda. He could also donate it all to the Democratic National Committee, or save it for a 2012 reelection effort.
To keep the playing field even. Should donations in excess that exceed an opponents funds be returned to the donors?
Best answer:
Answer by Possum
No.
What do you think? Answer below!
Posted in 
Tags: 
Then who decides who gets the money? Are we going to have 50 candidates in the next election, all spending the same amount?
I’m more concerned about the way Obama ‘gamed’ the rules that were already in place.
Almost half his money, for example, was supposedly donated to his campaign 29 days before the election, meaning that the sources didn’t have to be declared because it was after the 30 day cut-off. I don’t so much mind that a lot of huge businesses gave millions to Obama… I’m more worried that they did so in such a way that we don’t get to know WHO financed his campaign.
Richard
Absolutely not. The Supreme Court has rightly rules that money is speech in politics. By donating to a candidate of my choice I am doing nothing less than the more charismatic person might do by standing up and speaking in their favor. The court was WRONG hoever to feel that the ‘perception of corruption’ was a compelling government interest that thus gives the government the right to regulate it as much as they have. Better rules would be one simple rule: Donate as much as you want, whenever you want, but there must be 100% transparency reported in REAL TIME.
Of course, I DON’T donate to candidates because I don’t want to end up mailing lists for the rest of my life.